IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                FILED
                                                                 February 18, 2009
                                No. 08-10544
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO FLORES, also known as Rudolfo Flores

                                            Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 4:06-CR-188-16


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent Rodolfo Flores has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

(1967). Flores has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed
to allow consideration at this time of Flores’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they
have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to



      *
      Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
                                 No. 08-10544

develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell,

, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Flores’s
response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.     Accordingly, counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.




                                       2